Rozzi still pushing for overhaul of child sex abuse law

HARRISBURG - State House leaders plan to take steps next month to revive a proposal that would enable some people sexually abused as children to sue even if their window to do so has already closed.

House officials said Tuesday the plan is to add a retroactive provision back into a bill that would overhaul time limits for victims to take legal action.

“That's where the members are and we'll see how it goes,” said Stephen A. Miskin, a spokesman for the House's Republican leadership.

At a Capitol press conference, state Rep. Mark Rozzi, a Muhlenberg Township Democrat and the measure's chief proponent, vowed to continue his push for protections aiding victims abused in the past to be included in the bill.

“We cannot choose to help one group of victims and ignore another,” said Rozzi, a victim of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a priest. “We must do the right thing by all of them.”

In April, the House approved an earlier version of a bill that included a measure allowing victims up to age 50 to sue regardless of when the abuse occurred. But the Senate in June unanimously passed a version without that provision.

Restoring the retroactive piece carries the risk of the bill being caught up in a standoff between the two chambers. If the bill is not passed before the legislative session ends in December, it would need to be introduced again next year and the process would begin again.

Jennifer Kocher, a spokeswoman for the Senate's Republican leadership, said she's not sure whether the Senate would take up the bill again if the House makes changes.

But she said supporters demanding the retroactive provision are jeopardizing a bill with several other elements that could aid victims.

Those provisions include ending time limits for victims to pursue criminal charges, extending the deadline for lawsuits against institutions to age 50 from age 30 and eliminating the deadline for lawsuits against individuals.

“All of these things are in that bill and are being overlooked in the discussion on this one provision,” Kocher said. “This all-or-nothing approach is allowing child rapists to avoid prosecution and it's handcuffing survivors from being able to sue.”

Rozzi said after his press conference that if senators are willing to derail the entire proposal over objections to the retroactive piece, that's on them.

“They can throw out there what they want but the point is they need to do their job,” he said. “If we just pass that future bill, it doesn't help victims for another 30 years. We have an opportunity to help victims now.”

The retroactive provision has been met with opposition from Catholic Church leaders and the insurance industry.

Opponents say the provision is unconstitutional and would unfairly target private institutions. They say it would open a floodgate of lawsuits over acts that occurred decades ago.

Supporters argue the measure would give victims a path to justice and a chance to publicly name their abusers, encouraging other victims to step forward and helping to identify pedophiles who are still active. They say it's the norm for victims not to come forward until years later.

But even among supporters of the overhaul, there remains some disagreement over how to proceed on the legislative front.

State Victim Advocate Jennifer Storm said holding out for a bill that includes the retroactive piece is vital to stopping abusers' access to kids.

“Sometimes you have to take an all-or-nothing approach,” she said during Rozzi's press conference.

Cathleen Palm, a Jefferson Township resident and founder of the Center for Children's Justice, said in an interview that the ideal bill would include the retroactive piece.

But she said if senators can't “muster the political courage” to approve that measure, advocates should push to get the other protections adopted this year and continue to advocate for the retroactive component.

“At a minimum, doing something has got to take priority this fall,” Palm said.

Rozzi said he fears that if the bill is approved as is, there won't be pressure for the lawmakers to address the retroactive provision in the future.

“We know that,” he said. “And that's why we've got to be adamant that if we do it, we do it right.”

If the House alters the bill, any further changes by the Senate would require a vote by the full chamber. And the full Senate has never voted on the retroactive provision because it was removed by a committee before the full chamber considered the bill in June.

In voting to remove the provision, members of that committee cited testimony of then-Solicitor General Bruce L. Castor Jr. who said the measure would violate the state Constitution. At the time, Castor was the state's top legal officer.

But newly appointed Attorney General Bruce Beemer backs the retroactive measure and said he thinks there's a strong case to be made it's constitutional.

The plan's supporters have urged lawmakers to pass the bill and allow the state courts to weigh in if its constitutionality is called into question.